However, the way it is worded bothers many, and in this instance, me. I agree that as a community we must promote familty atmosphere, that the decline of the nuclear family was in part due to the removal of such an interest, the over-emphasis of personal experience over communal well-being, but the wording implies others should have a definitive say in family matters.
I think people are worried about the others dictating their children, or that children are going to simply be residents in your home and little else. The community supporting children through the restraint of inappropriate action is one thing, and support of public school reformation is good. Its been argued however that we outspend almost every major nation in school spending, and our scores are significantly lower. I'd support change in school before extra money being lent to do more of what we have now.
We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.
So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.
Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s we start making better investments.
The bold is what I take most offense to. perhaps given more time she'd explain it more precisely. . .